BillMcKern

COME ON! You people who support Obama are capable of accusing the Clintons of ANYTHING, no matter how ludicrous.

How come it's not OBAMA who's screwing things up for Clinton or trying to make HER lose in 2008 so HE can come back in 2012?

This isn't really hard to figure out -- It takes 2,025 delegates to win the nomination. Neither candidate has that many. Either candidate could possibly compile that many. Why should either one of the quit now?

We don't give the victory in the Daytona 500 to the guy who's ahead after 495 miles. We don't award the Super Bowl to the team that's ahead after three quarters. We don't give the Major League Baseball crown to the fist team to get three World Series wins. In such a close race for President, why on earth would we expect a candidate for President to quit before all the primaries and caucuses are held and all the delegates are awarded? posted 03/22/2008 at 20:10:14

You make a mistake when you say Clinton is my candidate. I'll support either Clinton or Obama, whichever is nominated.

I didn't say there'd be revotes in Florida and Michigan. I said they might be resolved so the delegates could be allocated and vote at the convention. That in fact will happen, in some form or fashion -- no way the party takes a chance of losing those states in the general election because of bad blood in the primaries.

Clinton has always planned for the long haul in the race for the nomination. She never considered herself inevitable, or dismissed Obama's strength as a candidate. The "inevitability" meme was generated by a media that hates her so they could then enjoy tearing her down when she didn't meet the false expectation that they set.

What happened after February 5th wasn't Clinton being unprepared, it was the media pushing Obama forward with all its might while simultaneously trying to tear Clinton down. It's abundantly clear that in the media's eyes, Obama can do no wrong and Clinton can do no right.

Here's the deal -- it takes 2,025 delegates to win the nomination. Neither candidate has 2,025. If I was one of the two candidates in that race, I wouldn't quit, either. In fact, if I was in second place to the candidate who appeared to have 2,025 delegates, I STILL wouldn't quit. The one who appears to have the nomination won may decline it, the delegates may change their minds, the candidate who appears to have won might die or get injured.

Even so, that just a hypothetical. Like I said, neither one has attained 2,025 delegates yet, and either one could, so the race continues. posted 03/21/2008 at 23:00:48

By the latest delegate count, Obama has 1622.5 and Clinton has 1472.5. That means Obama needs 402.5 to win the nomination, and Clinton needs 552.5. There are 244 super delegates who have not endorsed, and 566 delegates who have not been chosen yet. That's a total of 810. 402.5 and 552.5 are both less than 810. In other words, neither candidate has won the nomination yet, and either one could still win it. By the way, these numbers don't include Florida and Michigan. If those situations are resolved, Clinton won't be 150 delegates behind Obama, they'll be virtually tied. Again, the point is that neither candidate has been nominated yet and either one could be.

Go ahead and tell me you're dismissing the suggestion that Clinton could have made an honest mistake about this particular arrival ceremony. None of you has ever made a mistake like that before, conflating two different events as one recollection in your own memory? And mind you, that's just one possibility. Wait to hear both sides before you jump to a conclusion. posted 03/21/2008 at 22:22:04

How WRONG you are. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE is subject to worse abuse and treatment at the hands of the media than Hillary Clinton.

This will turn out to be a nothing story -- Hillary Clinton isn't so stupid as to intentionally lie about something that can easily be verified. It will turn out that she conflated in her memory the arrivals for two different trips or something like that. You know -- like when Al Gore correctly recalled visiting the site of a natural disaster, but incorrectly remembered being there with the FEMA director. It turned out that Gore had been there, but with the deputy director. That's hardly a LIE, because "lie" means intentional deception. posted 03/21/2008 at 21:06:31